About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, that there is no military solution to conflicts we're fighting today as in iraq, as in afghanistan, that in the end the resolution of this will be a political matter. and you say that's wrong. the first order of business in winning a war is to kill the enemy fighters. very forthright statement, but one that does go against the grain. and i would ask you to look at afghanistan today and assess whether you think that approach of killing enemy fighters is going to lead us to something that could be called a military solution. >> guest: yes, i do but i'm not saying the military solution is the only part of the solution that matters. there has to be that military solution. there has to be the position of a mine any enemy that you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. i think that's what's going on in afghanistan now. there was something in iraq in the awakening of the sunnis to the rest of the country, the idea that this is a tribal battle but the americans are not going to be the strongest try. i think that is something that is now being impressed upon the various elements, the tal
occupation, especially, afghanistan, especially, iraq and increasingly, the spillover of afghanistan into pakistan is causing a huge number of attacks there. and so what's been occurring is not just a large number of suicide attacks but a large number of anti-american-inspired suicide attacks. >> so besides the obvious policy of pulling out, is there another policy? >> absolutely. >> to prevent this. >> because pulling out, simply abandons our interests, ignores our interests. what this book suggests is a middle ground policy called offshore balancing. offshore balancing continues to pursue our core security interests and obligations in overseas regions but does so with over the horizon, naval power, intelligence assets, relies on economic assets and political tools and this is the core policy that we pursue as the united states for decades in major regions of the world, such as the middle east with great success, and we should return to this policy. >> can you give us specifics about how we should pursue the policy in the middle east. >> in the 1970s and '80s, the united states had
represented inside the corridors, halls of power. afghanistan, you know, if we listen to present obama during the campaign, and i was one who said that progressives need to be as tough and pragmatic as president obama as he is about us, he spoke about afghanistan as the good work. and he did that because he needed to show because of the national security state grip on our politics, and to we find a way to end of that, the president remains captive to the to a large extent, he had to show he was tough. i think now what is going on in this country is you have the ability, polls are polls, but an issue is afghanistan, corporate power is never. you have trans-partisan majority people want to find a way out of afghanistan who believe corporate power is too strong in this country. and a president with leadership who could seize that. not too late. and find way to build a politics around that. thinking of president johnson, wars kill. reforms presents. when ever anyone things of all the flaws of president obama, he is a reform, may be deluded, too limited, but in these areas he is a reformed preside
had "rambo" in afghanistan, you have a war in the afghanistan and a lot of the way we describe it is about the rambos in afghanistan. obviously, gordon gekko becomes bernie madoff and all the ripoff artist on wall street. the evil guy from "tron," i'm only have joke here, kind of is mark zuckerberg. [laughter] the a-team, the idea of the private contractor you have to hire to fix your problems for you is kind of, in some ways, blackwater or at least our reliance on private contractors and how we think about private contractors. and the evil guy, cobra, in "g.i. joe," was a very clear allusion to islamic fundamentalist terrorism. what i argue in the book is that these images, these stories became powerful in the 1990 and -- 1980s and enduring because of certain structural changes that were happening in our economy. and i told nathan by e-mail that i was going to do this. i stole and used one of the cover graphics of nathan's book to sort of highlight how this happened. but an argument in this book is that things change in the 1980s in a way that made the storylines and the icono
territories or in afghanistan. and there's the mother apology hattie. he wrote the first book on global jihad. what the names of global jihad ways. and now it's also kind of interesting to me because there have been many, many books about 10 minutes writing writings and biographies and everything. but none of them mentioned margaret marcus amerian jameel. none of them talk about him as a father or it has been for a brother or son. marion's letters were all about his household and the way it was run. there seemed to be of benefit instead of looking at this man is this powerful political leader, which is how the academic scholars have written about him was to look at the politics of his household, which were much more complicated and unexpected than you would as soon, given his writings. i mean, miriam would be upset because his wife didn't always coming in now, wasn't always an instant purdah. she would say, why didn't you wear your veil to meet her brother and not quite she said, doesn't your husband get upset at that? she said you know, my husband is such a saint. he is so much patience for
believes we would have been in iraq past 2,004 or we would still be in afghanistan >> that's what i just said. this is a debate we can actually have because i think it's, you know, you can make an argument, at the same time i -- it's the kind of academic question. i don't feel it's going to happen. >> but your great-grandfather would say we have to have these. islamic academic arguments, g maybe. >> don't go pleading fdr on me. >> yeah, you know, one of the things to remember about the brothers and looking at the story is valuable is they were really working out how to answer some of these questions and there was an urgency because the new questions and they felt them and these are questions we just don't feel the kind of tension between the responsibilities of individual, responsibility as a citizen, efiks versus morality, the sound academic terms but@ when it came down to it's like are you going to die for your country, are you going to change society in such a way that it's not as equal or unjust we have huge structural problems in thiƱ country. our property right is like 22%,k seco
in afghanistan. it was an ill-conceived scheme. so on that resistance existed in congress and the american politics was basically correct. all the people who oppose the war were smart and president bush and his lieutenants were wrong. i have to be very clear here i do not think president bush and his lieutenants life for selfish reasons. they lied and they took the united states to the war and iraq because they thought that was in the american national interest. they thought they were doing good for america but the fact is they didn't. they didn't pursue a smart policy, and the naysayers have the stronger hand to play and it's just too bad they didn't carry it. estimate 1976 jimmy carter's campaign i will never lie to you was one of the lines he used to read did he live up to that? >> he told of least one why i know of and that is when it became clear that the iran rescue mission was going to be exposed she had his press secretary lie to the newsman who smelled this operation was about to take place president carter and jody powell did the right thing. i'm sure none of them felt good about
out to be a disaster and even had negative effects on the war in afghanistan. it was an ill-conceived scheme, so all the resistance that existed in congress and in the american body politic was basically correct. all the people who oppose the war were smart and president bush and his lieutenants were wrong. i want to be very clear here, i do not think president bush and his lieutenants lied for selfish reason. they lied and they took the united states into the war in iraq because they thought it was in the american national interest. they thought they were doing good for america. but the fact is they blew it. they didn't pursue a smart policy and the naysayers had the stronger hand to play and it is just too bad they didn't carry the day. >> host: in 1976 jimmy carter's campaign, i will never lie to you was one of the lines he used. did he live up to that promise? >> guest: no, he told at least one lie that i know of and that is, when it became clear that the iran rescue mission was going to be exposed, he had jody powell who was his press secretary, lie to the news man who
in iraq and afghanistan. >> i speak out against the size of the u.s. military budget. we're spenting like 17 times as much as russia and china, and i think it's crazy. we have troops in 65 countries and bases all over the world. what do you think we are, the british empire 200 years ago? i mean, we don't make money off of that, and then they do better without us there. the last war we won was against japan. [applause] >> i'm it is true, you did speak out on it, but a lot of corporate executives, even when they are retired, not just corporate exec ties, but not one in the last election, i can't remember one other than from ohio -- >> that's your home state. >> i like him. the names are hard to pronounce. [laughter] but i think he was the one who spoke out against the size of the military budget. nobody spoke out against it. it's to the military industrial complex like eisenhower warned years ago has taken over the country basically. >> not just the military budget. you got retired, very wealthy business people. no one's going to be able to do anything to them. >> they got successful becaus
. and we're fighting these wars, three, $4 billion a week now in iraq, afghanistan. >> i speak out against the size of u.s. military budget. we're spending like 17 times as much as the next two biggest countries, russia and china, and i think it's crazy we have troops in 65 countries and bases all over the world. what do we think we are, the british empire to images ago? we don't make any money off that. and they do better without us there. the last war we won was against japan. [applause] >> okay, peter? i mean, it is true. you do speak out on it, but a lot of corporate executives, even when they are retired, not just corporate executives, congressman and centers, not wondering the last election that i cannot remember one except maybe the one from ohio. >> kucinich. thatcher hosted. they're both from ohio spent his name is hard to pronounce. but i think he was the only one that spoke out against the size of the military budget. nobody spoke out against it. it's true, the military-industrial complex like eisenhower warned us years ago has taken over the country basically spent not just the
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)